SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K.S.Rastogi for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla (respondent No.2), who is appearing in person and Ms. Savita Jain appearing for rest of the private respondents. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being heard and decided under the Rules of the Court at this stage.
(2.) BASICALLY , the orders impugned in the writ petition arising out of the mutation proceedings, this Court would have declined to exercise its extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but considering submission that the impugned revisional order is wholly without jurisdiction, which is a well established exception in such matter, as referred above, I am inclined to proceed further decide the matter accordingly. The short question up for consideration is whether after amendment made in 1997, second revision would lie or not.
(3.) THE petitioner initiated mutation proceedings before Tehsildar Mohammadi, District Khiri relying on a registered Willdeed dated 13.12.1990 alleged to be executed by Shiv Narain Lal with regard to the land situated in village Bhoora Pipri, Pargana and Tehsil Mohammadi. Respondents No.2 to 6 preferred their objection challenging the Will. The execution as well as registration of Will deed, both was challenged. The application was ultimately allowed on 21.11.1995 and Addl. Tehsildar, Mohammadi (Kheri) directed to record the name of petitioner and his brother Ram Lal in place of Shiv Narayan Lal. Respondents No.2 to 6 filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mohammadi (Kheri). The appeal was dismissed on 03.09.1996 whereagainst a revision was filed, which was rejected by the Addl. Commissioner on 6th May, 2000. The second revision preferred before the Board of Revenue has been allowed by the impugned order dated 29th August, 2001.;